Gursewak Singh vs Food Corporation of India, New Delhi

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.

This writ petition is filed to declare that the award of tender for handling transport carriage to respondent No. 3 is illegal and arbitrary.

The Food Corporation of India invited tenders for appointment of Transport Contractors for handling of transport of foodgrains at the Sirhind Centre. The petitioner and the 3rd respondent submitted their tenders on 7.6.1994 for the said transport work. At the time of opening the tender, the tender of the petitioner was found to be lowest and it was placed at Sr. No. 1, whereas the tender of the 3rd respondent was placed at Sr. No. 5. The petitioner was informed by a telegram of the Regional Manager of the Food Corporation of India to keep his tender open upto 6.9.1994. The petitioner''s offer was of 181% while the offer of respondent No. 3 was of 220%. Thus, according to the petitioner, his offer was lowest, but the Food Corporation of India allotted the contract to the 3rd respondent. Therefore, the petitioner filed this writ petition to declare that the award of contract to the 3rd respondent is illegal and arbitrary and prays that the same be set aside.

The Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the `FCI'') filed a written statement admitting that the rate offered by the petitioner was lowest, but the tender submitted by the petitioner was not in accordance with the notice inviting the tender and he did not fill up AppendixII and had also not enclosed any bank balance certificate. Therefore, the offer of the petitioner was not considered. It is further averred that the 3rd respondent fulfilled all the terms and conditions and it was his next lowest tender. Therefore, the contract was allotted to the 3rd respondent and the petitioner was not awarded the contract because he did not fulfil the terms and conditions of the tender notice.

The 3rd respondent filed a separate written statement inter alia stating that he was awarded the contract as he fulfilled the terms and conditions of the tender notice and he started the work with effect from 3.12.1994 and had already deposited Rs. one lac as security with the FCI and he also spent a sum of Rs. two lacs as advance to the labour and also paid a sum of Rs. 12,780/ as labour licence security. It is further averred that the petition was filed on 27.3.1995 i.e. about four months after the allotment of the contract and, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is also stated that at the time of opening the tender, the tender submitted by the petitioner was found to be not in order and the same was not accompanied by necessary documents. Therefore, the FCI rightly excluded the offer of the petitioner from consideration and there is no illegality in awarding the tender to the 3rd respondent.

Without going into the merits of the case, this writ petition can be disposed of on a short ground of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court. There is no dispute that the contract of transport of foodgrains was allotted to the 3rd respondent on 1.12.1994 and the transportation of the foodgrains had to be undertaken with effect from 3.12.1994. It is also an admitted fact that the 3rd respondent started the work on 3.12.1994 and the contract was for a period of two years which is going to expire in December, 1996 i.e. after 4/5 months. The writ petition was filed in this Court on 27.3.1995. Thus a delay of 4 months in approaching the Court for seeking to set aside the award of contract to the 3rd respondent, in my opinion, disentitles the petitioner for claiming any relief. It has been observed by the Supreme Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority and others, AIR 1979 SC 1628, as follows :

``Moreover the writ petition was filed by the appellant more than five months after the acceptance of the tender of the 4th respondent and during this period, the 4th respondent incurred considerable expenditure aggregating to about Rs. 1,25,000/ in making arrangements for putting up the restaurant and the snack bars and in fact set up the snack bars and started running the same. It would now be most iniquitous to set aside the contract of the 4th respondent at the instance of the appellant. The position would have been different if the appellant had filed the writ petition immediately after the acceptance of the tender of the 4th respondent, but the appellant allowed a period of over five months to elapse during which the 4th respondent altered their position. We are, therefore, of the view that this is not a fit case in which we should intervene and grant relief to the appellant in the exercise of our discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution.''''

In the case on hand, the 3rd respondent started the work of transporting the foodgrains as per the contract. He also deposited the security amount of Rs. One lac and he paid an amount of Rs. two lacs advance to the labour besides paying the labour licence security of Rs. 12,780/ Till today, the 3rd respondent was carrying on the transport work of the Corporation. The period of contract is also almost coming to an end in other five months. In these circumstances, I do not think that it is appropriate to grant any relief to the petitioner. Further the tender submitted by the petitioner was not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender notice.

In view of my foregoing discussion, I do not find any ground to allow the writ petition. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.